1999 JUN 01 REG MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

conditions were imposed, to carry out that protection, the Council felt that it was obligated to issue the permit. RECESS: At 7:58 P. M., Mayor Pro Tempore Emeritus Cook declared a brief recess and at 8:13 P. M., the meeting was reconvened with CM Bennett, CM DeLaRosa and Mayor Gaytan absent. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING (Continued): Attorney Roger Diamond continued his cross-examination of Community Development Director Zamora. After objection and discussion, Attorney Diamond stated that CCP Section 1094.6 compelled him to make arguments now that he would want preserved for a judicial proceeding. Attorney Diamond made a general offer of proof contending that Municipal Code Section 5.32.050 did not authorize the City to impose conditions on a particular business for the right to get the permit. He stated the right to get the permit was independent of conditions. He asserted that the rule-making authority under 5.32.050 did not apply to conditions and that 5.32.040 was vague because it purported to give the City Council unbridled discretion to grant or deny a particular permit without regard to the criteria that should be utilized. He said there were no standards in the ordinance for determining when somebody should get the permit and when somebody should not get the permit. He said it was totally discretionary with the City and this he deemed to be improper. However, once the City had acted to give the Permit, Attorney Diamond declared it made a finding in support of the applicant and it was premature to immediately turn around and revoke the permit, since there was to be a six months review of the business. City Attorney Sonia Carvalho asserted that the issue was a moot issue since applicant on advice of counsel agreed to certain conditions of approval. With respect to the claim that City Council had given with one hand and taken with the other, Attorney Carvalho said the audio/video record would clearly show that Mr. Thanoupolos and Mr. Skropos, his attorney at that time, both agreed to conditions of approval after being asked if they clearly understood that if there were any such incidents like those occurring at the other clubs, that the City would immediately move to revoke. Attorney Diamond argued that the conditions were agreed to under duress, otherwise the owner would have been sitting on a huge investment and a half -completed building. Attorney Roger Diamond continued his cross-examination of Community Development Director Zamora. Having worked closely with the applicant and the staff members, City Attorney Carvalho indicated that the City's intent in requiring that the reciprocal easements be recorded was to put any successor to the property, where the additional parking was being provided, on notice that should they acquire the property that they were stuck in this agreement with the applicant. The City knew, at the time the condition was imposed, that the City could always revoke the dance permit if the applicant did not have sufficient parking. In response to inquiry, she stated that in situations where reciprocal parking easements are requested, it was the policy of Best, Best & Krieger, as City Attorney for the City, to recommend that they be recorded. She indicated that she told Attorney. Skropos that the lease was sufficient if it was revised and put into recordable format and he assured that it would be taken care of. City Council Mins June 1, 1999 5